493
Hong Kong are, in fact, only agencies of
houses established in enemy territory, and
Lir. Boner Law has no reason to suppose that
the Hong Kong house of Meyerink mentioned in
this correspondence was anything more than
an agency of some house established in enemy
territory.
3.
Mr. Boner Law assumes for the
purpose of the present case that the Lenden
trauch of the
!
Dresdner Bank being in liquidation under
the direction of His Majesty's Government
must be treated as a British Bank, but it
arpears to him that even on this assumption
the Bank ought, before attempting to make
arrangements for the transhipment of these
goods to Hong Kong, to have applied to the
This, it
Board of Trade for a licence.
appears they did not do, and, strictly
speaking, therefore, the action taken by
them in the matter appears to have been
in contravention of the Trading with the
Enery Proclamations.
4.
Moreover, if application had
been made to the Board of Trade for a
covere
The Transaction not being g License of
25.444
Ich
)
presumabl
licence, that licence would/have made it
an express condition that the goods should
be carried on a British ship,si
since it is
doubtful whether carriage in a neutral ship
does not prevent Frize proceedings from
being taken, on the ground that such pro-
ceedings would be contrary to the
گھر
Declaration of Paris. In fact, the goods now we question
have been brought forward in a neutral
vessel, and therefore it appears very
doubtful whether these goods could now be
acconsuy
seized and ajudicated as Frize, which woul
Which would have been hase the procedure/adopted if the
Vo
anauge]
Bank had been a British Bank and had a
the transhipment and forwarding of the
goods in accordance with the licence from
the Board of Trade. In that case the
goods would have been condemned by the
Prize Court and the Bank would have been
allowed by the Court to sell them and
satisfy their lien out of the proceeds,
accounting to the Crown for any balance
that
licence
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.